Every
day millions across the country navigate to government webpages, to
read pertinent information. Since
2000 that access has been safeguarded, thanks to a prohibition on
government websites using cookies or other tracking technology to
track users. Agency exceptions could only be granted under
cases of "compelling need".

Now
the Obama
administration
is looking to overturn
that prohibition
and potentially begin harvesting a wealth of data on its citizen's
activities. Under the plan, the prohibition would be replaced
with a set of privacy provisions. Aides say that it would
increase government transparency and "increase public
involvement".

The
measure, though, has many opponents. The American Civil
Liberties Union spokesman Michael Macleod-Ball commented that the
measure would "allow the mass collection of personal information
of every user of a federal government website."

Other
opponents dislike that the government may be looking to revoke the
protections at the request of search-engine
giant Google
and other parties. The Electronic Privacy Information Center
and Electronic Frontier Foundation, both of which oppose the measure,
pointed to a February 19 contract with Google and an unnamed federal
agency over an exemption to use the
YouTube player.

EPIC
retrieved the proposed changes, negotiated by the General Services
Administration, through a Freedom of Information Act request and says
they "expressly waive those rules or guidelines as they may
apply to Google." States EPIC Executive Director Marc
Rotenberg, "Our primary concern is that the GSA has failed to
protect the privacy rights of U.S. citizens. The expectation is
they should be complying with the government regulations, not that
the government should change its regulations to accommodate these
companies."

Currently,
government content is banned from having tracking cookies, but
third-party content, such as YouTube videos on federal websites may
have tracking cookies. Google spokeswoman Christine Chen
declined to discuss the new rules, but thanked the government for its
use of YouTube, stating, "[The use of YouTube] is just one
example of how government and citizens communicate more effectively
online, and we are proud of having worked closely with the White
House to provide privacy protections for users."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Don't apologize, you're talking to someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "curtail", and believes we live in a "democracy". The little noobers of the day have sucked up the commie propaganda like sponges for quite some time. If they had paid attention, they would know the Founders abhorred "democracy" - that the government has NO RIGHTS, and cannot take rights away from citizens EXCEPT by VIOLATING the rule of law - which they attempt in many ways to do more and more often since our founding. The spit and vinegar will come out of that one as soon as he/she experiences the adverse affects of "democracy", which likely cannot be too far into the future. USofA Founding: Man was created with inalienable rights, and government is formed TO PROTECT THOSE. The government does not, in the American version and absolute expectionalism above all other methods, acquire rights, nor a "majority voice of the people" to "do their will" - since that will may also be to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS inherent to their fellow man. ( HENCE the current argument that "healthcare" is a RIGHT - if the government gets enough of the "mob" to AGREE - the government then claims not just that it is here to PROTECT that right, BUT TO ADMINISTER IT'S VERY EXISTENCE - hence PROVIDE and TAKE AWAY that right at it's WHIM - at it's pleasure, at it's taxing or monetary printing inflation rate or DEMAND that other individuals WORK under xx wages or orders to make that "RIGHT" occur.) Developing an endless list of "RIGHTS" the government can assume power to "protect" is also DANGEROUS. If one assumes (falsely and naively) the "democratic group of people" never make a "tyrannical mistake or decision", it's just fine to screech "your voice is represented" so what are you worried about ? However, reality a long time ago taught the Founders that the "mob" will take away others and (hence)their own rights just as easily as some lunatic dictator or elite power group. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a "democracy", and in our REPUBLIC the rule of law declares neither the government nor any other actor may take away those rights which are inalienable, and permanent FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS, FOREVER. They don't get to take them away because "it's a good idea" or because " the reps were voted in and therefore the people have spoken" - unless they are BREAKING our form of government, ignoring the rule of law, and the Constitution, and doing that which our government was designed to NEVER HAVE THE POWER TO DO. People, especially the younger people, seem to have never learned such, and are very happy to preach exactly the opposite - as if popular opinion or a "majority of 51%" over 49% - "have the right" to "do what they decide" to everyone else, and even (then)to themselves. Nope, not in this nation.The government acquires rights by consent? Not in the USofA, sorry. DO NOT APOLOGIZE. The government has ZERO rights, you and I and "curtail" have ALL the rights, and the government's ONLY duty is TO PROTECT THOSE, not to abscond with them to use "as their own" "for our own good". NEVER APOLOGIZE for being free, nor knowing what it means to be so.